I’m really bored, it’s unfair to play this game when there are so many imbalances. you can’t have me in the Portuguese one of the best economies to have the cassadors and the goons more possible to have a choice to have fast and cheap ordinary, you can’t you have mexico, ethiopian, russia, broken and you have me from the other side a malta an italian carpets, in japan the yasube archers they cost so much, india is bad, the english don’t have engi.school. not to mention the ottos who haven’t received any nerf, that is, mercy devs. give a patch right give us a patch AND FINALLY APPEAR enough with the game of hide.ask some player from treaty
Thing is…
this game was never meant to be balance for treaty. Some civs were just meant to peter out in late game and not be as strong while other become powerhouses. Treaty not being balanced is good, and balancing for treaty has caused immense damage to the health of the game overall.
10 Likes
The game is mainly balanced for 1v1 games, after 20+ min games are not considered because at that stage there is usually already a clear winner
Yes ok i know that but dude i cant see ordinary very cheap units ,strelets same and you go to italy malta and other and see more expensive units
well, while that’s true, treaty has been part of the game for a long time, even if I’m not the biggest fan of it. They should balance it, but separately.
You are bored, and you playing treaty…i mean, of course you are bored…
7 Likes
Which ones?? Because Sipahis, aztec rush, organ guns or Mexico werent planned for treaty and are the current balance concerns. Inca never were a huge problem in treaty and 7 fires council card wasnt for treaty either.
Same happens with revolts, only South Africa was an issue if the game lasted long enough. And no, mortars on samurais wasnt a treaty request
The only problem in treaty are the upper limit of certain civs - too strong eco + too many military pops, Mexico, Texas Usa, Ethiopia, Haude etc. Rest are rather ok. Civs are meant to be unique, so its natural that no civ can excel at everything.
2 Likes
I think it is fine that some civs are weaker than others, the problem is if some civs are stronger than the rest.
Most civs are relatively balanced in treaty, and there is nothing inherently stopping the game being balance for treaty (40) and normal supremacy, probably not going to make or break a civ in 1 v 1 if they have a mill card in age 1 or not.
First they need to work on the game at all xD
But yeah, they could, since DE already featured changed to " treaty only "
1 Like
I agree that most of the civilizations in the treaty are more or less balanced, the most urgent big problems as already mentioned would be:
Mexico, due to its chinacos, overpop of natives plus an excellent skirmisher.
Haudenosaunee: mantlets and the broken economy.
Ethiopia: Overpop of nats and powerful units/buildings.
USA; Texas, I think it’s not that broken but it’s still somewhat problematic.
Italy: This is a trash civilization in every sense. Its fragile army and mediocre economy make it unplayable and frustrating in most cases.
• Charged attack from Presidential Lances is now an attack that just adds +2 AoE to what is otherwise a normal attack.
• 25% less Conqs, and Aztecs from the TP-less native alliances. That’ll keep round numbers.
• Smokeless Powder should be nerfed, half the cost for half the effect (not just for Mexico).
• Skirm combat card in age 3 now adds +10%/10%, researches Veteran Salts, and adds the big button stealth ability. (Currently +15%/15% and adds the stealth big button).
• Age 4 Skirm range card now adds +1 range, down from +2.
• Hacienda trickle rate from livestock is 10% lower. Livestock trickle is 10% lower.
• Age 5 Federal Flag card’s improvement to the damage aura is cut in half. I think the base is +10% to current stats, and I’m guessing card makes it +20%, so make it +15% with the card. That’s still huge as a Current-Stats-Upgrade.
None of these would be a big deal in 1v1, in fact the addition of Veteran to skirm combat might be a small buff. This might not be enough to balance them, but it would go a long way while having a limited impact on Sup.
New York Zouaves are a bigger issue imo. I haven’t done much with Texas forts though. The shipment of cannons from New York should only add +15/15% (total of +40/40% from the age up and card). The Zouaves should probably add +100c each time it’s sent.
An age 3 Musketeer Combat card and a second Factory should go a massive way towards fixing Italy’s issues (both in Sup and Treaty).
1 Like
I would add a factory to Italy under these conditions,
1.Less eco trickle from lombard. Ursury nerfed
2.Papal Bombard weaker. 90 less HP in Imperial
Because the lombards do give a slightly decent bump to your eco.
As for now… I want Feitorias to be fixed back to the way it was. Its been nerfed so many times its *****ing annoying.
I agree, but this card also should apply to bersaglieri or, all rifle infantry units of Italy. IMO bersaglieri are really fragile and expensive as skirm.
The Papal bombards one of the worst or heavy artilleries of the game,
what you propose would only make them worse, becoming even more useless.
hi there … i have problem…i want to play with boneguard in aoe 3de…how to play with this units…please help
You can make them from 2 factories. Thats why its broken.
Unfortunately, the Boneguard aren’t a playable civ.
Within the Scenario Editor it’s possible to select the Circle (Boneguard are the soldiers of the circle) as your civ, but unless it’s changed since Legacy it’s basically a British clone. You could give yourself some Boneguard units at the start, but without more complex things (such as a mod or special triggers) I don’t believe you’ll be able to get renewable Boneguard units.
I just don’t get it why people play treaty and expect it to be balanced…at all
The problem is you cant modify base upgrades without totally broke some civ basics in 1v1, the game is more or less balanced at the moment. Mexico as civ is not even the most picked nor the one with the most wins, that is still otto.
Let me start here, firstly, your chart shows an over 50% WR with Mexico. Usually WR is an unreliable balancing metric because the ELO system is designed to produce 50% winrates. This can result in inflation or deflation of players’ Elo in order to keep a near 50/50 WR. I don’t think Mexico is op in Sup 1v1, but your own graph, if anything, implies they are. Pointing to pick-rate isn’t fair here because you can only pick a civ you own and I think a majority of players don’t own all civs.
Secondly, we’re talking specifically about Treaty. I’m not sure if we track WR in their, but everyone who plays treaty seriously knows Mexico is extremely OP in that mode.
What had I suggested nerfing? Did I consider balance effects on 1v1 Sup?
First off, things locked behind age 4-5 will have relatively little impact on a 1v1. Age 5 is rarely reached and, unless things have changed a lot, most games end before age 4. With that in mind, let’s look at my list:
Presidial Lancers (4). I suggested a nerf to the changed attack as it’s insanely strong late game. It won’t show up in most 1v1s but a simple solution if my nerf was too much would be adding to the card: “Guard Chinaco” tech costs 40% less. That would off-set the nerf to it as a 1v1 card while still being a significant nerf in Treaty.
Nerfs to Tlaxcala Alliance (Fed 2) and Aztec Pueblos (Fed 4), neither of these are used much in 1v1. They might be taken, but usually aren’t sent. In treaty both are extremely powerful and should be nerfed. Lets balance these cards based on where they are actually used.
Smokeless Powder (obtained via Tlaxcala Alliance or a Jesuit Mission) adds 10% attack to Gunpowder Inf and Cav, and 5% to artillery for 250f and 250c. An across-the-board nerf will not be an issue 1v1, especially if the cost is cut in half. Just make it 5% for GP units and Artillery. This is rarely used in 1v1 (unless someone built a Jesuit Mission TP in which case it’s a good nerf because Conqs are op as is). Mexico rarely uses the card that allows it to be accessed.
This is the first one that might be an issue in a normal 1v1, but I don’t think it’s unfair. Guerilla Tactics (3) would be +10/10% for Rifle Infantry and would Research Vet Salts and give them the stealth ability big button. It’s a small nerf with a small buff that won’t change much but will be big in treaty as Salt nerfs continue to pile up.
Plan of Miramare (4) transforms all your Salts into Guard French Skirms and adds +2 Rifle Inf range. I suggested cutting the range in half with no other changes. If needed cut the cost from 750f 750w to 600f 600w. +1 range and the power spike is still nice, but +2 range is OP in treaty Skirm wars.
This is the second one that would have an impact on 1v1. If you consider this a major concern just have aging to 2 give a second cow. At that point it would basically be a straight up buff to 1v1 while nerfing something that is an issue in treaty where people regularly have like 57 livestock working.
Land of Juarez (Fed 5). +20% damage on all Infantry and Cavalry near the flag (which also gets +70 range) is too much in treaty and will have no meaningful impact on 1v1.
For the number of overall units Mexico gets (115 pop space plus approximately 35 pop worth of natives), both Chinacos and Salts are too good late game. Mexico gets an army similar in size to the Dutch but with an economy that matches or surpasses that of a regular European civilization. Most of the changes required to fix Mexico’s treaty issues won’t have a significant impact on 1v1 and therefore should be made. The only reason not to balance Treaty would be if it would have a meaningful negative effect on 1v1 or team.
I’ve been a very vocal supporter of nerfs to Ottomans, but I’d like to think it possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Ottomans are a scourge to 1v1 and Team, but the level of imbalance in those is dwarfed by how strong Mexico is in treaty.
3 Likes